|
the unofficial sacramental position
of the JAC editorial board
by
Captain
Stephen Court
SAC JAC 05/06: being the
unofficial sacramental position of the editorial board (minus
one of the two members)
of the Journal of Aggressive Christianity. (complain to
revolution@mmccxx.net)
I had an interesting
experience at a territorial symposium recently. The inevitable
(in our territory) pro-sacrament proposal came and was nearly
approved to be forwarded to the TC and Cabinet. When asked if
there was any dissent to the various proposals, I sheepishly
stuck my hand in the air and admitted I had some problems with
the pro-sacramental proposal.
Asked to explain, I bored a few people with what follows (I’ve
tidied up a couple of contradictions I made there, and added
some bonus material, too!):
Origins.
But to kick things off, let me testify that this issue never
arises in my corps, in which new converts join Christian
community and become disciples within the context of primitive
Salvationism. The issue seems to emerge from two sources:
Christians transferring over to The Army from churches, and
corps officers who are more influenced from outside The Army
than from inside.
For the first problem, let me suggest that The Army assert a
position more akin to America than to Canada relating to
immigrants. If you move permanently to America you are
expected to become American in lifestyle and culture and
practice. If you move to Canada we bend over backwards so that
you can live whatever way you want. The result is that
American culture is enriched and Canadian cultural fabric is
shredded. The Army has suffered tears in its cultural fabric
by celebrating the lack of cooptation of incoming transfers.
For the second problem, let me suggest that corps officers
read Horizons and The Officer and Salvation Army books and
websites. There are a couple of great resources I can
recommend to start- The Orders and Regulations and the
Handbook of Doctrine. Good stuff.
The Argument.
The Salvation Army is non-sacramental for two main reasons: 1.
Biblical; 2. Missional.
1. Biblical.
Although Scriptural, the sacraments are not Biblical. By this
I mean that though practised as recorded in Scripture, they
are no more the intentions of God for us than that we argue
and split up our evangelism (as Paul and Barnabus), cast lots
for another apostle, worship solely at the Temple, stare at a
physical pole with a snake on it, carry around God's presence
in a little box, devote things by literally killing every
living thing, or being obliged to chop off foreskin to remind
us that we belong to God. What is Biblical in each of those
instances is not Scriptural: don't argue but wait on God and,
in the meantime, love one another; ask God; worship Him
everywhere, recognize that we are the temple of God; look up
at Jesus and not the snake (which, inevitably, like every
other physical practice given by God, proved a snare to the
people of God or proved obsolete as superceded by spiritual
reality); carry around God's presence in our lives; devote
things by giving them over to God (and not destroying every
living thing); and circumcising our hearts (this is a deeper
argument than it sounds, most eloquently put by Colonel Eugene
Pigford in SALVATIONISM 201).
Water Baptism.
The ‘command’ to baptize Matt
28:19-20:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded
you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the
age.
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptised, every one of
you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your
sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
That sounds convincing.
However, we need consider these verses in light of other
Scripture. Two parallel texts speak to this issue:
Matt 3:11 "I baptise you with
water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more
powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will
baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”
Acts 1:5 For John baptised with water, but in a few days you
will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.
'BUT' makes the water
obsolete. The water was a promise of the Holy Spirit to come.
It could be argued that to continue to dunk in water after the
Holy Spirit has come is to insult Holy Spirit.
The purpose of baptism was to publicly announce that the
individual was associating with the Christians. It also nicely
symbolised the death and resurrection experienced by a
believer in Christ at conversion. That's it. And the
resurrection part was purely a happy coincidence (or a neat
addition by God!), since water baptism is not even originally
a Christian ritual.
Luke's Acts text (2:38) is not a theological treatise. You
can't nail theology and practice based on Acts since there are
so many different methods used in Acts (if you do, you could
as easily assert that tongues invariably accompanies the
arrival of the Holy Spirit, that martyrdom is the chosen
church growth method, and communism is the certified means of
church life...). Theology is not Luke's purpose. In this text
Peter commands that they repent and be baptised because the
Jews in the crowd needed to associate with the Christians.
By getting dunked we are publicly associating with that
dunking group, whatever that group might be. Today, this is
obsolete, as wearing a Christian t-shirt (I was wearing ‘God
rocks and Jesus is better than disco’ on my shirt during this
impromptu presentation) or uniform (as I am reminded so
powerfully every time I go outside my doors) is magnitudes
more effective in associating with Jesus Christ publicly to
sinners than getting dunked once in front of six sinner
friends (I’m being optimistic) we were able to coerce out to
the holiness meeting with promises of Swiss Chalet (Canadian
restaurant and SA fave) and a swim afterward.
Oh, yeah, and Paul indicated that there is one baptism (Epheisans
4:5). I imagine he’s referring to Spirit, not water, in light
of his assertion in Romans 8:9 that without Holy Spirit you
aren’t even a Christian.
Communion.
The ‘command’ to take communion:
Luke 22:19 And He took bread,
gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This
is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
1 Corinthians 11:24-26 And when He had given thanks, He broke
it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in
remembrance of Me." In the same way, after supper He took the
cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do
this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For
whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim
the Lord's death until He comes.
That's a pretty spotty
command. Remember the context. They were celebrating Passover.
There was an elaborate ritual surrounding it, pointing back to
the commands of God to the people of Israel to avoid suffering
from the last plague on Egypt (Exodus 12). So, in the context
of that initial evening, Jesus’ instruction for us is that
whenever we eat Passover bread and wine we should do it
remembering that Jesus is our Passover Lamb! It’s an excellent
illustration. However, in The Army we rarely celebrate the
Passover. It is an annual holy day. At most, it happens once a
year.
In the Luke text, Jesus tells the disciples to do this in
remembrance. Does that mean that they are supposed to take
bread, give thanks, and break it (like
Jesus just did)? That is the simple meaning of the text.
That’s what they did. There is nothing ritualistic in that
text.
The Other Account of the Last Supper:
John 13:12-17 When He had
finished washing their feet, He put on His clothes and
returned to His place. "Do you understand what I have done for
you?" He asked them. "You call Me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and
rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and
Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one
another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do
as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is
greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the
one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be
blessed if you do them.
At the same last supper,
Jesus washes their feet, asks if they understand, asserts that
this is an example for them, “you also should wash one
another's feet. I have set an example that you should do as I
have done for you. ... you will be blessed if you do them.”
If anything comes out of the last supper, it is definitely
foot washing.
Here Jesus projects the actions of a private supper into the
future, casting them as an example which, when followed, will
bring blessing. If there is anything we are to imitate from
this last supper, it is to wash each other’s feet.
The two Protestant sacraments are, potentially, and
largely for the reasons suggested above, superstitious. As
such they are, potentially, not only in contrast with
but also in contention with Christianity. Not only are we
staunch non-sacramentalists, but we are also staunch non-superstitionists.
Missional.
The Salvation Army has a prophetic calling to the world. Most
of us haven’t forgotten that. But we also have a prophetic
calling to the rest of the Body of Christ (for which we are
the Fist- of the Body of Christ).
In obedience to this latter calling, we maintain a
non-sacramental testimony, willingly 'sacrificing' (or, at
least, foregoing) the ‘privilege’ of practising them as a
reminder to our cousins of every stripe and colour. For a
Salvationist to compromise by indulging in them necessarily
waters down the corporate testimony and prophetic integrity of
The Salvation Army, while, at the same time, letting down
every non-Salvo believer in the whole world, to whom we are to
be a prophetic testimony.
As one Body (the universal church), the Body still practises
the sacraments. Within the Body, the tiny part called The
Salvation Army is a living, breathing reminder to the rest of
the Body that the sacraments are helps at best, and that, in
and of themselves, they don't necessarily convey any blessing
that is not available without them. The testimony continues
outside of the Body. Whereas much of the Body finds itself in
the priestly tradition, into which the rituals of sacraments
fit smoothly (priests administer these sacraments, etc.),
The Salvation Army has was born in the prophetic tradition.
The prophetic tradition speaks out to society of sin, of God's
love, and of the way from one to the other. The focus is on
the prophetic, not the priestly. Fittingly we have stripped
off some/all of the priestly trimmings from our praxis (those
that remain are mostly accretions, like sacraments, to be
shed).
Other Reasons…
Practical.
It is not helpful for us to identify, before our people- the
sinning public- with the liberal (apostate?) churches that hog
the real estate downtown and most of what passes for Christian
warfare on our front.
It is not helpful for us to identify with the visible church
for great commission purposes, as the visible church happens
to be rejected by the majority of citizens in every country
(based on church attendance).
Number 8 serge is a bear to dry clean after mucky harbour
dippings.
Conclusion.
The neat thing at the symposium was that, after my diatribe,
the leader of the group proposing the pro-sacramental stand
suggesting retracting the proposal and having this argument
taught to soldiers everywhere.
Now, that is a great idea.
|
